Hum from phone wires running next to mains?

[Michael A. Terrell]

| Ivor Jones wrote:
|
|>
|> With no respect,
|
|
| Plonk

You should do that more often.

I plonk for arrogance, not ignorance. You have NOTHING to worry
about.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[PCPaul]

[snip]

: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to : : understand, and
more difficult for others. Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just
adding one more response to : : let you know that your non-standard
usage is not : : appreciated.

Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure gets to
a noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.

Ivor

: :
: : Ed

Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*

 

[krw]

It's a "wonderful" antenna regardless. But it's a
single conductor long wire antenna. Changing the
spacing is merely changing the effective diameter of the
single conductor. To get any other effect requires
spacing that is significant in terms of wavelength
(greater than perhaps 1/8th of a wavelength, for
example).

Absolute nonsense.

It picks up as much, or as little, as unshielded twisted
pair of smaller gauge and closer spacing. That's the
point... there isn't any difference. In either case
what you have is a single conductor longwire antenna, not
a loop antenna, until the spacing is a significant fraction
of a wavelength.

Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Absolute nonsense.

Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
transmission line.

Bullsnit. Try reading your EE100 text again.

I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
Start with Kraus.

 

[CBFalconer]

[snip]

: : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder to : :
understand, and more difficult for others. Apparently, : : you
don't care. I'm just adding one more response to : : let you
know that your non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.

Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years. When that figure
gets to a noticable percentage, I might sit up and take notice.

Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*

The only problem with a straight plonk is that other peoples quotes
of the plonkee shine through. The advantage of that is that one
has a chance to decide the plonk should be retracted.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: : PCPaul wrote:
: : : Ivor Jones wrote:
: : : :
: : : : [snip]
: : : :
: : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
: : : : : : to : :
: : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
: : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
: : : : more response to : : let you know that your
: : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
: : : :
: : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
: : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
: : : : might sit up and take notice.
: : :
: : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
: :
: : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
: : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
: : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
: : the plonk should be retracted.

Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.

BTW nobody has yet mentioned which piece of flaky software gets upset by a
: instead of a >


Ivor

 

[krw]

Actually, that's why it works so well as a balanced
transmission line.

Sure, it's a transmission line for the t-wave on the line. It's
also an antenna, with the gain proportional to the area of the loop.
Try running that open line next to a power line.

I'd suggest studying transmission lines and antennas.
Start with Kraus.

Get real Floyd!

 

[Guest]

|
|
| | : : PCPaul wrote:
| : : : Ivor Jones wrote:
| : : : :
| : : : : [snip]
| : : : :
| : : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
| : : : : : : to : :
| : : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
| : : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
| : : : : more response to : : let you know that your
| : : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
| : : : :
| : : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
| : : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
| : : : : might sit up and take notice.
| : : :
| : : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
| : :
| : : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
| : : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
| : : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
| : : the plonk should be retracted.
|
| Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
| the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
| a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
| register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.
|
| BTW nobody has yet mentioned which piece of flaky software gets upset by a
| : instead of a >

It looks like maybe PCPaul's software, which identifies itself as
"Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)" might be getting them confused. I don't
know if it because it is a ":" or because you are using double ": :".
I don't see a logical reason for the software to get confused. Once
it has parsed passed the headers and into the content body, the logic
should simply be to look for any special character that is repeated
at the beginning of every line. I believe a "." might have problems
because it gets used as an escape during transmission in NNTP. But
even that has generally worked for me (so most software still handles
it OK).

Apparently what his software did was dismiss line breaks of the message
he quoted, and mingle the ": :" into the message.

What can be confusing to people is the double ": :" usage. That makes
it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous poster quoted with
":". So instead of that quoted text being understood as the part of
the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the grandparent post.
It also looks like you or your software replaced other people's quoting
character with ":" or ": :". Whatever anyone uses, that should be
left as is (unless it is clearly broken).

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


It looks like maybe PCPaul's software, which identifies itself as
"Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)" might be getting them confused. ...

Piggy-backing, because Jones is plonked. Obviously he doesn't get
complaints, since all those who would complain have been ignored
and have plonked him. Most plonkers don't bother to advise the
plonkee.

 

[daestrom]

: : Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

: : I replaced your non-standard quote markers with
: : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
: : characters. They foul up other software.

With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem. I
use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope with
that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been using
the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to complain.

Here's a third complaint. The only thing worse is those that post in html
and so some newsreaders won't automatically mark the quoted text at all.

daestrom

 

[daestrom]

: : PCPaul wrote:
: : : Ivor Jones wrote:
: : : :
: : : : [snip]
: : : :
: : : : : : Non-standard usage can make your posts harder
: : : : : : to : :
: : : : understand, and more difficult for others.
: : : : Apparently, : : you don't care. I'm just adding one
: : : : more response to : : let you know that your
: : : : non-standard usage is not : : appreciated.
: : : :
: : : : Ok, you're the *second* complaint in 10+ years.
: : : : When that figure gets to a noticable percentage, I
: : : : might sit up and take notice.
: : :
: : : Third. But don't worry about me, because *plonk*
: :
: : The only problem with a straight plonk is that other
: : peoples quotes of the plonkee shine through. The
: : advantage of that is that one has a chance to decide
: : the plonk should be retracted.

Indeed. But even three complaints in 10+ years (and I have my doubts on
the validity of at least one of them) is not worth worrying about. I post
a *lot* of articles on Usenet in 20+ groups, 3 complaints doesn't even
register. 3000 might, or even 300. But 3..? Try harder.

Most folks just ignore you instead of bothering getting sucked into
arguments. Life's too short to waste my time on you and your 'non-standard'
stuff.

<plonk>

 

[daestrom]

I don't recall any system in North America that put ring
voltage on a separate wire. The yellow wire is
generally not connected unless one 4-wire cable is used
for two separate telephone lines.

In North America the "normal" line uses only 2 wires.
The audio signal is applied between the "tip" and the
"ring" of a single pair. "Ring Current" and "Loop
Current" are also applied between the Tip and the Ring
of the same pair.

Commonly used drop cable has four wires: Green is the
Tip and Red is the Ring (positive and negative,
repectively for the DC loop current), while the Yellow
and the Black wires are not used. (Note that the DC
voltages used by telephone companies are negative with
respect to ground, hence for DC the Tip wire is at
ground potential, and the Ring wire has a negative
potential. But the Tip is not at ground potential for
Ring Current or for the audio signal.)

One configuration often seen includes a second line on
the same cable, using Yellow and Black as Tip and Ring.

Historically the Yellow wire was, for a few years, used
for a small AC voltage (nominally 6.8 volts) to power a
lamp circuit on some telephone set models.

Spot on. My parents had a 'princess phone' in the bedroom and a small AC
transformer in the basement fed the light with yellow/black. But all the
phones in my house are just R-G.

daestrom

 

[kony]

: : Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

: : I replaced your non-standard quote markers with
: : the normal '>'. Please don't use thos non-standard
: : characters. They foul up other software.

With respect, and without wishing to start a row, that's *your* problem. I
use non-standard quote marks for a purpose. If your system can't cope with
that, then it's up to *you* to do something about it. I have been using
the quote marks I use for several years and you are the first to complain.

Here's a third complaint. The only thing worse is those that post in html
and so some newsreaders won't automatically mark the quoted text at all.

daestrom

I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it should
not be someone else's burden to cope with non-standard quote
marks - even if many newsreader apps can do so.

 

[Ivor Jones]

[snip]

: > What can be confusing to people is the double ": :"
: > usage. That makes
: > it look like you quoted with ":" what your previous
: > poster quoted with ":". So instead of that quoted text
: > being understood as the part of
: > the parent post, it gets misunderstood as part of the
: > grandparent post.
: > It also looks like you or your software replaced other
: > people's quoting character with ":" or ": :". Whatever
: > anyone uses, that should be
: > left as is (unless it is clearly broken).

It's OE Quotefix and I've found the setting that caused it to convert the
existing quote marks and I've disabled that, so they should now be as they
were.

Hope this helps.

Ivor

 

[Ivor Jones]

[snip]

: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: > can do so.

It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

Ivor

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

[snip]

: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: > can do so.

It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with
idiots who misconfigure their software.

 

[kony]

[snip]

: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: > can do so.

It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

Ivor

Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the
simple and standard format it is presented in, versus say a
web forum.

 

[Ivor Jones]

: >>: >>
: >>[snip]
: >>
: >>: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are
: >>: > lots of worse things but make it a 4th complaint
: >>: > because it should not be someone else's burden to
: >>: > cope with non-standard quote marks - even if many
: >>: > newsreader apps can do so.
: >>
: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >
: > My software copes with anything reasonable, but not with
: > idiots who misconfigure their software.

It's not misconfigured. Just configured differently.

Ivor

 

[Ivor Jones]

: > On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 02:43:18 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
:
[snip]

: >>It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't
: >>cope.
: >>
: >>Ivor
: >
: > Yes it should because the whole point of usenet is the
: > simple and standard format it is presented in, versus
: > say a web forum.

Plain text. If you have a problem with that, then I'm sorry but it *is*
your problem. It's people who post in HTML and other strange formats that
are the problem.

Although even Outlook Express can cope with that.


Ivor

 

[Graham.]

[snip]

: > I don't know about "only thing worse", there are lots of
: > worse things but make it a 4th complaint because it
: > should not be someone else's burden to cope with
: > non-standard quote marks - even if many newsreader apps
: > can do so.
It shouldn't be *my* problem if your software can't cope.

Ivor

I think software developers sometimes call this kind of dilemma Postel's Law
..